Did Britain or the CW use the US 37mm M3 gun?

Can a hand grenade destroy a small artillery piece?
This is a PaK 38.
http://www.warlordgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/pak.gif
The crew are huddled tightly together behind a shield of two 4mm plates. They don't exactly have acres of room to sit back and admire any 40mm holes appearing in their cover. A 2lb AP will smash through spraying fragments in all directions, kill or injure some of the guys crewing the gun, and possibly knock the thing over. A HE shell with a few grams of filler will smash through the shield, spray fragments in all directions killing or injuring the crew slightly more thoroughly, possibly knock the thing over, and leave a scorch mark on it. It doesn't seem like it would make much of a difference at the end of the day. Where HE normally shines is in blast and splinters, but with such a tiny shell it would generally bury itself in the ground and throw the splinters mostly upward.

By all means, if a HE shell is handy and there is spare time and resources to dish it out then it might be a handy thing to have, but I don't think bombarding the Hun AT with HE in portions of two or three tablespoons is going to make a huge difference. There was far more serious things wrong with British tanking than lack of 2lb HE.
Artillery tend to dig in, with sandbags. Against which a solid AP shot is bugger all good, as the BEF discovered in France in 1940 when the Flak 36 knocked out Matildas. I refer specifically to Arras when Rommel's Flak line disables or destroyed 24 tanks in a few minutes. Two thirds of the British tanks were lost to direct artillery, Flak or aerial attack.
 
according to Ian Hogg, the two pounder did have a HE shell, but it wasn't deployed, since the primary weapon for supressing defensive fire was the MG.
From Wiki, the HE shell was:

High-explosive, tracer
(never placed in production)[3] HE/T Mk II Shell 1.86 kg (4.1 lb) 0.86 kg (1.9 lb) Lyddite 792 m/s (2,600 ft/s)

So rather than adopting a new gun, they could just have manufactured the HE ammo developed for the 2 Pdr, and issued it to units.

From the same sourece, the heavier HE Shell for the 37mm was:
HE HE M63 Shell 1.42 / 0.73 TNT, 39 g 792 / 782

So the HE 2pdr Shell was heavier, packed a bigger charge and had higher velocity.
 
If that small of HE was worthless, why were 20mm+ cannons so effective against aircraft? Why was 37mm HE to goto for shooting barges in the Pacific?
Because detonating larger projectiles with small amounts of explosive inside light fragile structures tends to reduce their aerodynamic or waterproof properties more than spraying them with machine gun bullets? On the other hand setting off an explosive in contact with the ground or sandbags and hoping for splinter damage works less well.
Artillery tend to dig in, with sandbags. Against which a solid AP shot is bugger all good, as the BEF discovered in France in 1940 when the Flak 36 knocked out Matildas. I refer specifically to Arras when Rommel's Flak line disables or destroyed 24 tanks in a few minutes. Two thirds of the British tanks were lost to direct artillery, Flak or aerial attack.
Oh, you mean these flak lines? http://ww2today.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/88mm-Arras.jpg
Look like prime MG fodder to me. If they were properly dug in then again, 37/40mm is not the solution you need.
Amazingly enough the vast majority of tanks tend to be lost to artillery, it's pretty much a given. The real question is how many were lost that could have been avoided by having 40mm (or 37mm) HE on hand, for which I've never seen an estimate. I do wonder if the at least took the step of mixing AP into the machine gun belts, which might have helped a tiny bit.

However I think this whole discussion is turning into a typical AH.com angels on pinheads discussion. If your primary counter to AT in prepared positions is trying to pot them from an assaulting tank before they kill you, then you are pretty much doomed to defeat. It's like trying to choose the best cavalry saber for charging a square of musketeers.

Whether the CW had the M3 or 2lb, HE or not, if they don't sort out their tactics and all-arms coordination they are going to get ripped apart if they have to attack against pre-sited AT. Fix that and the lack of HE becomes a mere annoyance.
 
Give the French some kudos for the pre-war move of putting a decent 47mm gun on some of their tanks - Somua S35 and the useful towed 47mm APX AT gun. Nice hole punchers, with some HE capacity on a compact format.

I've been wondering for a while on a WI the M-3/5 family of light tanks had a slightly larger turret and was equipped with the 47mm...
 
In the right window of time(late 30's to '42) that would have been a winner.

Potentially a brilliant gun if it had been in service in large enough numbers but would have needed a much bigger vehicle. The gun the French used on their tanks was a different lighter shorter gun the SA35 which was a 32 calibre gun.
 

Driftless

Donor
Potentially a brilliant gun if it had been in service in large enough numbers but would have needed a much bigger vehicle. The gun the French used on their tanks was a different lighter shorter gun the SA35 which was a 32 calibre gun.

Yup. Do you know if the ammunition was interchangeable between the two guns? *edit* Didn't the French mount the 47mm m37 APX gun on the back of the Laffly S15 military truck, as a makeshift TD?

The Belgians, Czech's, and Austrian's (I believe) also made useful 47mm guns in the same time range. The Germans mounted the Czech made gun on a tank chassis as a mobile AT gun, and I think the Italians mounted the Austrian designed gun on a couple of vehicles. Basically, there were usable upgrades available in place of the 37mm guns so many were using.
 
Yup. Do you know if the ammunition was interchangeable between the two guns?

Sorry dont know about the shell but the case was different. The SA35 had a 193mm long case the APX had a 380mm case.

The Belgians, Czech's, and Austrian's (I believe) also made useful 47mm guns in the same time range. The Germans mounted the Czech made gun on a tank chassis as a mobile AT gun, and I think the Italians mounted the Austrian designed gun on a couple of vehicles. Basically, there were usable upgrades available in place of the 37mm guns so many were using.

The Czech 47mm was a very good weapon probably equally as good as the APX.

Skoda 47mm kanon P.U.V. vz36 anti-tank gun
caliber: 47mm (1.85 in)
length of barrel: 2.04m (6 ft 8 in)
weight: travelling 605kg (1,334 lbs)
and in action 590kg (1,300 lbs)
traverse: 50 degrees
elevation: -8 degrees to +26 degrees
muzzle velocity: AP 775m (2,543 ft) per second
maximum range: 4000m (4,375 yds)
projectile weight: AP 1.64kg (3.6 lbs)
and HE 1.9kg (3.3 lbs)

The Austrian and Belgian 47s were a bit lower in performance but still better than the 37/40mm guns.
 
Last edited:
In the right window of time(late 30's to '42) that would have been a winner.

Plenty of room

Turret Diameters

M2A4/M3 Stuart 1188mm M3 37mm
M8 GMC 1382mm 75mm Pack Howitzer


Churchill 1378mm 2pdr, 6 pdr, 75mm

Type 97 Chi-Ha 1350mm 57mm L18.5 low velocity gun or 47mm L48 high velocity gun 2,700 fps

T-34/76 1420mm (76mm of 31 then 41 caliber)
 
Canister does NOT destroy the rifling of the barrel. When a canister round is fired, it is contained in a thin sheet metal casing that peels off after exiting the bore. I doubt you will need a tracer for it, this is a short ranged weapon designed for anti-personnel (IE, shooting the PBI) usage. Decent link below on modern use.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/02/29/shot-gunning-from-a-tank-m1028/
You don't need tracer but think of the spectacle.
Hmm, how about "dragon's breath" type incendiary rounds for tanks?
 
Remember doctrine has the main say, doctrine decreed that the HE round wasn't the role of the two pounder, hence non deployment. However once in the field with lots of nasty buzzing things flying around....

Hogg recorded in his book on allied artillery how he knew a 2pdr gunner who told him that he'd become the fastest runner in the 8th army...
 
The Czech 47mm was a very good weapon probably equally as good as the APX.

Skoda 47mm kanon P.U.V. vz36 anti-tank gun

The Austrian and Belgian 47s were a bit lower in performance but still better than the 37/40mm guns.
Even the British had an interesting 47mm. Maybe a bit overweight but most of these old WW1 guns could be lightened a bit with newer materials and tooling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_3-pounder_Vickers?wprov=sfsi1
Keep that at the full 50 calibers and 785m/s and it could have been useful. Almost double the projectile weight of the 2lb
 
Top